Ratings doesnt excuse the propaganda they spread or how bias they are. Where on earth did you the idea because they are so popular the information
they spread is factual? Can you not think for yourself? Can you not make that decision for yourself?

This reminds me of a favorite quote by Marcus Aurelias;

“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

You are right. Popularity means nothing.

There is another quote whose author I cannot remember, but it goes something like;

"Just because ten million people believe a thing to be true, does not make it true. "

Anyway, regarding this extreme right wingers antics, I'll just say, let them have their "tea parties", their rebellion, or secession or whatever.
It'll never work, and I would love to see them try, and fail miserably.

If they fail, then what? We have the same problems that we did the day before, except now we have a freshly embittered sect of true believers that
were willing to protest when things were indignant, and will likely be urged to hang political opposition from streetlamps when their protests falter.

Originally posted by dooper
There is a reason that Fox consistently get the highest ratings. Think about that for a moment. Their shows have some of the highest ratings in the
entire market.

Odd, for someone who is lying. It just may be that there are fewer idiots who will swallow anything found on all the other networks, and that those
who quietly reach their own conclusions pick - choose - select - prefer the approach of FOX.

Everyone has a channel selector.

Odd. The majority willfully elect to watch FOX.

Now why would that be if FOX was such an inferior network?

IF my country goes to civil war on behalf of these FOX folks MM will be making jerky out of each and every anchor

BTW FOX received the WH briefing every day as well AS TP - your statement is sheep
grub.

Anyhow mark it... country takes the big fall and those folks at your temple will NOT be safe anywhere!

Originally posted by yellowcard
I don't know why Fox News gets slammed so often, when MSNBC is far far far more biased.

Look... first off, if you are a liberal, Fox is biased towards evil. If you are a conservative, I assume that MSNBC is biased towards evil.

I find that I fall in between most of the poles on the spectrum of politics. For example, I'm typically very fiscally conservative, socially
liberal, and all around capitalist.

I hate the perversion people have been calling capitalism for years, when in reality it's been corporatism guided by nothing short of sorcery,
sorcery carried out by the contemporary and fellow cult member of Ayn Rand.

If you read Ayn Rand's rant against communism, the evils she sees in it, and then read Einstiens rant against capitalism (he didn't find communism
any better), you will find that they rant against opposite systems yet they claim the same reasons.

They key is this... Ayn Rand was a traumatized child... look at her ability to leverage abstract concepts, driven to that by the insecurity she
experienced under the hands of communism. And the irony of this and how it ties all back into Fox is as follows.

You see, Ayn Rand was so abstract and detached that she didn't understand what Viktor Frankl discovered in the Nazi Concentration camps. Her
philosophy was Objectivism. Wikipedia describes it as follows:

Ayn Rand's philosophy: Objectivism

Beginning with such novels as We the Living (1936), The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), novelist Ayn Rand communicated to her readers a
philosophy she called Objectivism. Objectivism is an integrated system, addressing issues in the five main branches of philosophy: metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Rand defined capitalism as the separation of economics and state. Capitalism, she said, was the only social system compatible with man's nature as a
rational being.

Objectivism rejects the possibility of a God (or any supernatural events) existing in the universe on metaphysical grounds, whereas libertarianism
does not address any metaphysical questions, which allows theists to be libertarians but not Objectivists.

You see, Rand didn't understand Logotherapy. Seriously, read about Logotherapy, and then read
about Objectivism, or do it the other way around... but expose yourself to both of them.

In a nutshell, Objectivism is about will to power, and Logotherapy is about will to meaning. These two concepts are opposed to eachother, and thus it
is ironic that Ayn rand, who believes in no God, impresses a young Alan Greenspan, and she becomes a guiding force upon the American markets, and
psyche, yet at the same time, the people who continue to support these principles of Ayn Rands, are typically religious folk.

Now see, that's an easy one... it's pretty easy to sell a philosophy you are passionate about to people who are also passionate about their
beliefs... you just neglect to tell them you think they are fools. All the while applauding them for passionate beliefs.

And to be honest, that's the real truth behind Fox, or at least behind Rupert Murdoch. You see, Rupert doesn't believe the nonsensical views that
many of the Fox pundits share. Rupert likes ratings... period. Rupert is member of the "will to power" cults, while feeding off of the "will to
meaning" cults.

there is absolutely nothing new about this so-called declaration of independence to secede from US to form a Fox Nation. such silly ramblings by
bloggers are not backed by facts. in fact it is pure fantasy. this story defintely removes the credibility that newscorpse may have enjoyed in the
past. drawing such conclusions from "reading between the lines" isn't based upon any level of truth. now does any reasonable person believe FoxNews
has declared such independence. it is absolutely no surprise or novel that ultra-right-wing conservatives would declare themselves independent from
ultra-liberal ideas. i think both emotional extremes from the left or the right are based more upon dogmatic ideology, fear and reactionary
conclusions. the formation of a viable political movement of moderates, independents and centrists is the closest thing we have to a viable solution
to the current two-party greedy socialistic-capitalistic system. maybe a good name for such a new way would be the American Moderate Party(AMP) or the
Moderate American Party(MAP). Either moniker of MAP or AMP could to the path to power!

The trouble is, there's no such thing as "objective". The universe is set up in such a way as to make this physically impossible. You cannot
causally separate observer from observed, either on the level of quantum physics, or above that.

So her starting position is a crock, let alone anything else. I think the influence of Leo Strauss, who held the view that people are cattle and
it's fine for politicians to lie to the public because otherwise you'd never get anything done, is more important. He's the guiding light behind
virtually the whole neocon movement.

As for whether women on the right are hot... er... Ann Coulter? I'm sure she looks better after the op, and since having her Adam's apple removed,
but the corrosive bile that fills her veins renders her disgusting even if you put aside all notions of her original gender. Sarah Palin? Not
unattractive, but not exactly what we Brits would refer to as "the thinking man's crumpet".

Oh... someone earlier posted a bunch of Fox videos. I only watched the first one - I can only take so much before my faith in human nature becomes so
eroded I want to gouge my own eyeballs out - but they actually made Michelle Malkin seem like a moderate! That is one hell of a trick to pull
off. Was it George Carlin or Bill Hicks who used to refer to people like that as, "they read the bible a lot so they can tell other people what to
do"?

There's something wretchedly mean-spirited and smug about most real right-wingers that renders them ugly in my eyes. Don't get me wrong: ideologues
generally are unattractive. There are no cute women MPs in the UK. I mean, Hazel Blears. Come on. It's not the fact that she's short, fat
and plain that I really object to. It's the dead-behind-the-eyes robotic demeanour that renders her utterly terrifying.

I can think of only two attractive women in the political arena, and one of them is dead: the late Benazir Bhutto and the great Naomi Klein.

This, of course, is all well off-topic.

I used to think I'd want to live in the future. Now I'm here and can see where we're headed, I'm really not so sure.

Originally posted by mandroid
Star and Flag. Fox is by far the worst MSM as far as bias goes. They were a wing of the whitehouse for the last eight years sending the daily
talking points out to the misinformed and hoodwinked Fox viewer who would then spread it themselves. You can almost hear them giggling at the
destruction of common sense and common good.

I challenge you to watch Keith Olberman for a week and report back to me, I guarantee you will change your mind.

Olberman is MSNBC's Billo,
they're both so full of themselves that one can't help but smell the stench. & both wear way too much pancake make -up (Even by Television
standards) & both believe themselves to be not only spot on informative, but humorous at the same time (This is because they are so full of
themselves) So what do we have with both of them? Two past middle aged men wearing way too much pan cake make-up who believe themselves to be
intelligent news casters with something to say, that everyone needs to hear. I'll bet they both run around their offices after a broadcast in hot
pink satin panties childishly singing " I did better than he did, I did better than he did" Both are a waste of human reproductive fluids.

This is such a joke. I love the way people on this forum go after the one network that doesn't go with the echo chamber. Normally, something like
that would be a redeemable quality to peope on these forums, but they lean right so they're evil! None of the people complaining about Fox here care
about the dozen or so network that parrot left win, democrat talking points on a daily basis. No, we're all supposed to be outraged and worried about
a single network with a different perspective. Southern Guardian's lack of concern about MSNBC, CNN or any other left wing networks, is a clue about
his bias. Hes got no problem with the white house influencing the media, as long as its is agenda they are pushing.

You think its a coincidence that this site is sponsored by MSNBC and you never see threads complaining about their bias? Imagine if this site ran
banners for fox news.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.